12 Responses to “Jim Bagnall – Family Court should follow Australia”

My thoughts exactly John **I see the MEDIA still has it wrong — ALL supporters of the **NZ-FATHERS-Coalition** are SpokesMen/Women**

However we play into Boshiers hand by extolling whats happening in OZY – NONE of the OZYies I communicate with think the new system is all that great – The updates on the HandsOnEqualParent-NEWS talk of much disappointment

If we don’t keep right up to whats happening in our issues World-Wide we makes the same mistakes as our peers overseas without listening to their learning

I have heard one thing they propose is to use compulsary mediation. I believe a very big part of the problem is our adversarial or conflict-based dispute resolution process where lawyers do their best to hide the truth and caused delays. There is nothing in legislation that says that on separation the woman is to get custody of the children and possession of the matrimonial property and the man is to be sent to anger management. This only happens in common law or judge-made law.

Jim you are absolutely right. Presumptive Equal Shared Parenting as the starting point is essential to deny either party a position of power and control.
Further, compulsary mediation can only be successful where BOTH parties want what’s best for the child, and where the courts actually listen and take on board what mediators say.

Tiger,
I’ve been on the recieving end of ‘mediation’ and it’s been misandrist to a tee. I had no show of getting a fair crack. Just bear in mind ‘mediation’ is but a word which can mean many different things to many different people – many with hidden agendas which unfortunately don’t become apparent until you’re sat in front of them.
Jim and XSryder said it right. Presumptive joint shared parenting as the starting point is the way to go IMO.

I agree, presumptive joint shared parenting as the starting point is the way to go. The question I ask is, where in legislation does it say otherwise and yet we know that’s not happening.

I’m well aware of agendas but with mediation, parties don’t have to agree to anything. Parties and attorneys often have a common motivation to obfuscate the resolution process: one may not want to face up to the issues in dispute; the other gets paid for their time. They typically will refuse to negotiate and will unnecessarily escalate the conflict and the costs of litigation. In most disputes there is typically only one party who really wants to have things resolved. In front of a good facilitator it’s hard to keep that going. If nothing else you will at least have a record that could be handy later when you are accused of not wanting to settle in the plea for costs. Even if parties don’t enter into an agreement you party may gain invaluable understanding.

Shared parenting should be a given, but not possible in lot of cases. Especially if you have selfish ex that undermine your authority and will not support you.
I am saddened that some people choose to make life harder for the children and parents involved. When it could be made easier with a little co-operation.

Leave a Reply

Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.

This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.

Latest Comments

JustCurious Wed 3rd June 2020 at 11:41 am on Sexual assault at NZ universitiespoor women... abused and threatened everywhere. Protected species clad in skimpy clothes, make up and wrapped in nakedness and promiscuity. (...)